it2025_00329 — The Applicant herein, while on probation with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a Driver met with an accident and hence he was discharged as he was under probation. This termination is faulty as he has to be given other job commensurate with his physical disability condition as provided for under Section 47 (1) of the Disabilities Act

IT Rules

The Applicant herein, while on probation with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a Driver met with an accident and hence he was discharged as he was under probation. This termination is faulty as he has to be given other job commensurate with his physical disability condition as provided for under Section 47 (1) of the Disabilities Act — The provided chunk comes from a decision by the Principal Bench in the case of Shri Amrish Kumar v. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority where it was ruled that, in the absence of a suitable al... — Facts: The Applicant employed with Delhi Transport Corporation, posted vide letter, dated 10-2-2008 met with a major accident on 30-3-2010. This information was given to Respondent on 1-4-2010 along with medical advice to take rest in bed for a month. The Applicant received a letter from DTC, dated 8-12-2011 informing him that his services were terminated with effect from 23-11-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of Delhi Road Transport Authority Regulations (DRTA) as he was declared unfit for the post of Driver by the Medical Board. That termination order is challenged in this OA. The main contention of the Applicant against his termination from service is that, Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act) provides for alternate employment commensurate to his disability is to be given to him as held by Apex Court in number of cases. If no such alternate post is available, he should be accommodated in a supernumerary posts till a suitable post is found or till he attains the age of superannuation. Disability Act, being beneficial, one should be applied liberally prevailing nor other terms of appointments. He filed this OA mainly to withdraw the termination order, dated 8-12-2011 and provide him with alternate appropriate job and to pay him the cost of litigation. The main contention of the Respondent is that, the Applicant being on probation was terminated with effect from 23-11-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of DRTA as he is found unfit for the post of Driver. Further, the Applicant is unfit to receive any benefit under Section 47 of Disabilities Act since he was on probation. The Tribunal considered the case and noted that the appointment of the Applicant is in temporary nature with probation for 2 years. On completion of training, he will be posted only when a notification to this effect would be issued by the Competent Authority. During probation, his services can be terminated without any notice or reasons. The Tribunal also noted the termination order of the Applicant, dated 8-12-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of DRTA (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation. Clause 9
(a)
(i) is reproduced in the judgment which in short states that during probation an employee can be discharged without assigning any reason thereof. However, the reason assigned for his termination is due to declaration of Medical Board. Hence, the DTC did not violate Rule 9
(a)
(i) and his termination is legally correct. The Tribunal recalled the events of his termination as his medical unfitness in between the date of his appointment on 10-12-2008 and his termination order, dated 8-12-2011 with effect from 23-11-2011. The Applicant highlighted his contention for alternate appointment commensurate to his disability as per Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. Section 47 (1) states that "no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during his service, provided that if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. If no other suitable post is available, he will be kept in a supernumerary post". In view of the above, the Respondents cannot terminate the services of the Applicant as he acquired the disability during his service. Regarding his entitlement of alternate suitable job as provided for under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, it was held in the case of Shri Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ W.P. (C) No. 4261/2013 ], dated 16-1-2015 that " relief cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was still undergoing probation period at the time of acquisition of the disability. The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced in the judgment. The judgment clearly held that the relief cannot be denied to the petitioner therein on the ground as he was undergoing probation at the time of acquiring the disability". The next ground taken by the Respondents to deny him alternate appointment is that, the disability did not occur during his official duties while he was discharging his duties but outside Delhi during the course of personal work. In this connection, the High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar's matter (supra) in Para. 12 of the judgment held that "it is immaterial where the injury is caused while on duty or at any other time. Disability Act is a beneficial enactment. No person will welcome an injury to his person". In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajbir Singh [ 2002 (100) DLT 111 ], it was held that " It would mean that such disability must occur during the course of employment which expression finds place in certain status, as for example Workmen Compensation Act. The purpose and object of statute like Workmen Compensation Act is totally different and distinct from said Act. Hence, that Act cannot be quoted herein". The Tribunal further considered Paragraph 13 of the Pawan Kumar's case (supra) and held that: "to act as per the provisions under Section 47 (1) i.e. by giving him an alternative post with the same pay scale, continuity of service and other service benefits with the Respondent and work in accordance with his disabilities be assigned by Respondent within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner be put on probation as per the applicable rules on the alternative post for the remaining period of probation under the Respondent. The Respondent is hereby directed to pay 50% of his back-wages with due increments within a period of six weeks from today". The above view of the High Court is fully applicable in the present case. In the result, it was held:

IT Rules

The Applicant herein, while on probation with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a Driver met with an accident and hence he was discharged as he was under probation. This termination is faulty as he has to be given other job commensurate with his physical disability condition as provided for under Section 47 (1) of the Disabilities Act — The provided chunk comes from a decision by the Principal Bench in the case of Shri Amrish Kumar v. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority where it was ruled that, in the absence of a suitable al... — Facts: The Applicant employed with Delhi Transport Corporation, posted vide letter, dated 10-2-2008 met with a major accident on 30-3-2010. This information was given to Respondent on 1-4-2010 along with medical advice to take rest in bed for a month. The Applicant received a letter from DTC, dated 8-12-2011 informing him that his services were terminated with effect from 23-11-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of Delhi Road Transport Authority Regulations (DRTA) as he was declared unfit for the post of Driver by the Medical Board. That termination order is challenged in this OA. The main contention of the Applicant against his termination from service is that, Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act) provides for alternate employment commensurate to his disability is to be given to him as held by Apex Court in number of cases. If no such alternate post is available, he should be accommodated in a supernumerary posts till a suitable post is found or till he attains the age of superannuation. Disability Act, being beneficial, one should be applied liberally prevailing nor other terms of appointments. He filed this OA mainly to withdraw the termination order, dated 8-12-2011 and provide him with alternate appropriate job and to pay him the cost of litigation. The main contention of the Respondent is that, the Applicant being on probation was terminated with effect from 23-11-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of DRTA as he is found unfit for the post of Driver. Further, the Applicant is unfit to receive any benefit under Section 47 of Disabilities Act since he was on probation. The Tribunal considered the case and noted that the appointment of the Applicant is in temporary nature with probation for 2 years. On completion of training, he will be posted only when a notification to this effect would be issued by the Competent Authority. During probation, his services can be terminated without any notice or reasons. The Tribunal also noted the termination order of the Applicant, dated 8-12-2011 under Clause 9
(a)
(i) of DRTA (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation. Clause 9
(a)
(i) is reproduced in the judgment which in short states that during probation an employee can be discharged without assigning any reason thereof. However, the reason assigned for his termination is due to declaration of Medical Board. Hence, the DTC did not violate Rule 9
(a)
(i) and his termination is legally correct. The Tribunal recalled the events of his termination as his medical unfitness in between the date of his appointment on 10-12-2008 and his termination order, dated 8-12-2011 with effect from 23-11-2011. The Applicant highlighted his contention for alternate appointment commensurate to his disability as per Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. Section 47 (1) states that "no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during his service, provided that if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. If no other suitable post is available, he will be kept in a supernumerary post". In view of the above, the Respondents cannot terminate the services of the Applicant as he acquired the disability during his service. Regarding his entitlement of alternate suitable job as provided for under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, it was held in the case of Shri Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ W.P. (C) No. 4261/2013 ], dated 16-1-2015 that " relief cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was still undergoing probation period at the time of acquisition of the disability. The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced in the judgment. The judgment clearly held that the relief cannot be denied to the petitioner therein on the ground as he was undergoing probation at the time of acquiring the disability". The next ground taken by the Respondents to deny him alternate appointment is that, the disability did not occur during his official duties while he was discharging his duties but outside Delhi during the course of personal work. In this connection, the High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar's matter (supra) in Para. 12 of the judgment held that "it is immaterial where the injury is caused while on duty or at any other time. Disability Act is a beneficial enactment. No person will welcome an injury to his person". In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajbir Singh [ 2002 (100) DLT 111 ], it was held that " It would mean that such disability must occur during the course of employment which expression finds place in certain status, as for example Workmen Compensation Act. The purpose and object of statute like Workmen Compensation Act is totally different and distinct from said Act. Hence, that Act cannot be quoted herein". The Tribunal further considered Paragraph 13 of the Pawan Kumar's case (supra) and held that: "to act as per the provisions under Section 47 (1) i.e. by giving him an alternative post with the same pay scale, continuity of service and other service benefits with the Respondent and work in accordance with his disabilities be assigned by Respondent within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner be put on probation as per the applicable rules on the alternative post for the remaining period of probation under the Respondent. The Respondent is hereby directed to pay 50% of his back-wages with due increments within a period of six weeks from today". The above view of the High Court is fully applicable in the present case. In the result, it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text